ObamaCare Opposition is Mostly Racist (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Welcome to those of you who are coming to this post from The American Thinker. You’ll discover in short order that the title is sarcastic.

Well, since the health care issue has provoked so much heat (and some light) in the comments, let’s do it again. This time it’s Jim Winkler, Secretary General of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, who says that those of you who oppose current health care reform proposals are racists. Really:

Opposition to reform has transmogrified into something far deeper, far more elemental, though. Anger appears to be its salient feature. Racism and fear is at the core of the anger.

And how does Winkler know this? Because the man for whom health care reform is the signature issue happens to be African-American:

On reflection, this should come as no surprise. Immediately after the election of Barack Obama, a spate of racist incidents occurred, including cross burnings, black figures hanged from nooses, schoolchildren chanting “assassinate Obama,” and racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

Have such incidents happened? Yes. Are they appalling and fully deserving of the harshest condemnation? Yes. Do they have anything to do with the fact that the majority of Americans now oppose the current health care reform proposals? Only in the fervid imagination of Jim Winkler.

[R]acism remains deep-seated. It rears its ugly head repeatedly. President Obama has been portrayed as a monkey.

I laughed out loud when I read this. Does anyone remember what the left’s favorite nickname for George Bush was? “Chimpy.” (Google “Chimpy” and check out the images that come up.) Yeah, I know–applied to black people, it has racist overtones that it doesn’t with whites. Just sayin’…

Other grotesque racist imagery has appeared about him. The consistent, inaccurate use of “socialism” to describe health-care reform is a code word for racism.

And why is that? Because Jim Winkler says so. One can argue about whether that word is being properly used in the current context, but does anyone really think that if person of pallor Hillary Clinton were president instead, and the same proposals were being debated, that the right wouldn’t be using the same word? As far as it goes, I remember the HillaryCare debate in 1993, and the terms “socialized medicine” was thrown around a lot.

Numerous assassination threats have been issued against members of Congress. Gun-toting people have shown up at town hall meetings. There is talk of armed revolution in the air.

Once again, this stuff is reprehensible. But how much of it has there really been? I haven’t heard that there have been any more death threats against members of Congress than there normally are (there are always unbalanced people out there). I’ve only heard about one person who showed up at a town hall meeting with a gun. As for “armed revolution,” I don’t know where Winkler hangs out, but you’d better believe that if there was talk like that among any but the most extreme fringe nutjobs, it would be all over the mainstream media as a way to demonstrate how unhinged ObamaCare opponents are. It’s just not there.

I’m not suggesting racism is the sole motivating factor for opposition to health-care reform. Certainly the incredibly rich insurance countries [sic–I think he means “companies”] are wary of any changes that might affect their bottom lines. But the ugly rage demonstrated by many in our denomination and at town hall meetings is preposterous.

I’m glad that Winkler is willing to recognize that racism is not what’s behind all of the opposition to reform. And there’s no question that some of what has gone on at town meetings is over-the-top. Still, for one who was firmly in the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” camp as recently as last year, and who has never written a word of criticism of the political rage of the last six years, to complain about those who are expressing their dissent is more than a bit rich.

Well, exactly. Who was it who said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics? Still, 56% for, 54% against, seems like a pretty even split to me. Either way you slice it, close to half of the population of your country favour the plan.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, among others, and later popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. The phrase is not found in Disraeli’s works nor is it known within his lifetime and for years afterward. Many coiners have been proposed. The most plausible, on current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911).

“I’ve only heard about one person who showed up at a town hall meeting with a gun.”

It’s amazing how willfully uninformed some folks can be when they try hard. There wasn’t one guy in Portsmouth with a gun, there were two. Another man brought a gun to a town hall with Rep Steve Cohen (D-Tn). Someone dropped a gun at an event with Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Two weeks ago a man “tweeted” that people opposed to health care reform should bring guns to these events and “badly hurt” representatives from the Service Employees union. Then there was the guy holding signs outside a townhall threatening to kill President Obama and his wife and his children.

Then, according to several reports, as many as 12 people were carrying guns at a recent Obama town hall in Phoenix.

So no, it isn’t just “one guy.” But I guess one lone crazy guy is easier to spin.

Now, carrying a gun isn’t racist at all, obviously. But anyone who carries a gun to an event like this is already pretty off their nut already. (Unless someone would like to contend that there is imminent danger of a bear attack at a town hall meeting?) It’s not hard to believe that mixed in with that kind of stupidity and crazy there’s probably a bit of racism too.

That there is a pretty even split is the best reason to do nothing and wait for a broader consensus to form. But it’s about power, and the Obama people think they have the power to force people to go along. Strange, though, how positions change depending on the issue. When liberals/progressives are on the short end of the vote, it’s all about protecting the rights of the minority and not letting a bare majority use the power of the state (“the power of the sword,” to use the classical Reformed phrase) force their will on an unwilling minority. That’s the essence of oppression.

But when the liberals/progressives are in the 50%+1 side of the vote, it’s all about not allowing a vocal minority to resist the tide of history and thwart needed progressive social reforms. In this case, using the power of the sword to force an unwilling minority to conform is the essence justice.

Believe it or not, Alan, there is some news that gets by me without my being “willfully uninformed.” I hadn’t heard about the other incidents you mentioned. I wonder if any of them have anything in common with this guy:

The point is, no one, right or left, should be doing this, for any reason. Oh, and if you’re suggesting by your last sentence that at least some of the people carrying guns to rallies and meetings are racists, you won’t get any argument from me. And they still constitute a tiny portion of the people who have been at such gatherings.

Yes, I think some of the 12 people that I mentioned were folks described in that link, I think it’s the same report.

However, there is no way to back up your statement that there is only a tiny portion of the people at these gatherings are who are racist. That might be your wish and mine, but you have no evidence. No more evidence than is presented by Rev. Winkler, as a matter of fact.

I’m not defending willy-nilly charges of racism, whether on the left from Rev. Winkler or on the right from Glenn Beck. But of course, people on the right typically are only interested in criticizing Winkler and not Beck.

A more thorough blog entry on the topic would have been a bit more even-handed about unsubstantiated charges of racism, regardless of political ideology.

Alan: I’m not interested in Glenn Beck. Nor am I interested in Rachel Maddow, Janeanne Garafalo, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Bob Herbert, Bill Kristol, or any of the rest of the talking head and poison pen punditocracy, none of whom have ever been the subject of posts by me (nor will they be unless they seek to specifically make points about Christianity or Christians that demand opposition). My focus is on the church, and those in the church who need to be challenged for whatever reason. If you’ve got examples of conservatives, evangelicals, fundamentalists, or others who are in positions of leadership in congregations of prominence or denominations who say stuff that needs to be challenged, by all means send it along. And to be specific, if you’ve got examples of either racist comments about Obama (whether connected to this subject or not), or accusations of racism aimed at people without evidence, send it to me, and it will get the treatment it deserves.

By the way, it’s true that I don’t have specific evidence of the racial attitudes of the people in those crowds. I make the assertions I do because I think it only fair to give people the benefit of the doubt until they’ve given me some reason to think otherwise. Winkler has no evidence that the opposition to health care reform as it is currently before Congress has anything to do with racial attitudes, and thus no reason for making such a claim.

Americans do not want “health care” reform. They want lower insurance costs and for health care to be free. Problem is that insurance costs are propelled by health care costs and the amount of costs covered. And the other problem, nothing is free. Either you pay for yours or you pay for yours and somebody else. Until we tax all the people in this country at the same percentage rate regardless of income then nothing will be fair.

That which is robbery by a private citizen (i.e. stealing from me to pay for your housing, food, medicine etc.) is no less robbery when performed by a mob of people (government). If I VOLUNTEER to give to your charity, that is one thing, if you force me, then you have stolen from me in the name of government.